Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Davidrussell22 t1_ixct0pi wrote

What a waste of effort CO2 is fine. In 1995 Gardingen et al measured temps over CO2 emitting springs that had CO2 air ppms varying from 750,000 at 7am to 1000 at 4pm. The temps at those times were identical to those measured nearby where CO2 ppms were 360 all the time.

−5

Kinexity t1_ixd4sa7 wrote

That's just wrong on so many levels. CO2 adds very little to overall energy balance - like <+1W/m^2 average over the year. All the additional heat over spring will disperse through convection because you cannot compare unisolated system (air over spring) and (semi)isolated system (Earth's atmosphere). Also influence of CO2 isn't that straightforward - it causes troposphere to heat up while causing stratosphere to cool down so one random paper about incomparable system cannot explain it's function. Even putting aside effect on climate - 600 ppm of CO2 causes 10-15% decrease in measured intelligence in humans so you may not lose a lot but others may not want to.

2

Kinexity t1_ixebwlc wrote

Idk which part of your comment causes it to get deleted so I'm not going to cite any of it.

ppms are not important for interpretation of the total energy imbalance. The actual number I can find quickly is 0.47+-0.1 W/m^2. That's the energy flux of the surface of the Earth on average. It clearly indicates that the climate is warming. It's also a known fact that CO2 largely is responsible for that imbalance. I have no clue why you brought up bunch of loosely related numbers. Where even did "2 ppm yearly increase === 1W/M2" come from? That's ridicoulous rate of change.

Heat flows easily near the ground. It's not a proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Then you did not understand the point I made - it wasn't about the effect of said phenomenon on global warming but rather that atmosphere is more complex than some air over a spring.

Sources for CO2 vs intelligence:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1510037
https://www.gwern.net/docs/co2/2015-stafford.pdf
Video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA&ab_channel=TomScott
Now imagine schoolroom effect but global.

1

Davidrussell22 t1_ixetuny wrote

I got 2ppm per year from Feldman (2015) as I specified: 22 ppm increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 2 ppm per year. I got the 1 W/M2 per year from you. I asked if it was TOA or surface, presuming you meant TOA as this forcings are usually quoted that way. Surface forcings relate to TOA forcings in the ratio of 1.46 to 1 (the ratio of the 5.5 W/M2 it takes in extra surface energy to heat the surface from 288K to 289K using Stefan-Boltzmann compared to 3.7W/M2 at TOA to move 255K to 256K).

Your new 0.47 W/M2 is still ridiculously wrong even making the new calculations. Since your number is wrong, your conclusions are wrong too.

If your point was that the atmosphere is complex, you actually had no point.

What is clear to me from CERES satellite data is that the GHE is not operating as advertised. As it turns out in a rebuttal to Feldman (2015) Okulaer in 2015 points out that DWIR (the back-radiation that is putatively what causes AGW) actually declined from 2000 to 2014 by 0.63 W/M2. That rather disproves AGW for the 21st century.

1